Andrew Flintoff off speed charge

[empip]

...it was the turn of the England cricketer Andrew Flintoff to benefit from Nick Freeman's flair with the finer points of motoring law.

The alleged offence: driving at 87mph in a 50mph zone, which was recorded by a camera. The only problem (for prosecution lawyers): his prosecution notice was sent two days late...

How come so many errors seem to be made concerning 'high profilers' ?

Is anyone held to account for these errors?

Blimey,

...Perhaps his (Free man's) greatest coup was the acquittal of the snooker champion Ronnie O'Sullivan. In December 2001 he was accused of racing two women along an East London street in his Porsche at 2am. It did not look good: he failed three breath tests and refused a blood test citing a fear of needles. Mr Freeman's winning argument? Mr O'Sullivan had been unable to give a urine sample because his depression made him too stressed to urinate...

 

[Trazor]

Nick Freeman is good, he even got Stevie Wonder his licence back.

 

[WDIK]

Outside court, Mr Freeman said: “It is fundamental in any speeding case that the notice is sent and received within 14 days.” But the document had arrived only on July 19. “It happens a lot if people care to look at it,” he said.

NIP notice of intention to prosecute.

a factor available to anyone who checks, why employ a lawyer?

 

[empip]

Outside court, Mr Freeman said: “It is fundamental in any speeding case that the notice is sent and received within 14 days.” But the document had arrived only on July 19. “It happens a lot if people care to look at it,” he said.

NIP notice of intention to prosecute.

a factor available to anyone who checks, why employ a lawyer?

MAy not be that simple...

...A notice sent by post must be dispatched so that it would reach the driver within the 14 days within the ordinary course of the post. If this is the case then it will have been deemed to have been served even if it is delivered outside the 14 day period...

...a notice of intended prosecution, specifying the nature of the offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, must be served on the offender, or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence, within 14 days of the offence.
These provisions are deemed to have been complied with unless or until the contrary has been proved (ie you will have to raise it)...

How does the recipient prove the NIP was delivered outside the 14 day window??
I assume the NIP was posted in good time - otherwise why proceed?

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

If you have a load of dosh you can afford the tricky dicky brief to get you off. The likes of you and I would not risk it/couldn't afford it.

There is a book out by an ex traffic cop who gives somegood tips on how to avoid a ticket.

http://www.drivershandbook.co.uk/

 

[empip]

I remain interested in how the defence proved the NIP was not recieved until the 19th - the offence taking place on the 1st... Did they in fact have to prove that? If so how??

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

It would seem to be sent via the post and not recorded delivery otherwise there would be a proof of delivery, dated and timed.

 

[empip]

It would seem to be sent via the post and not recorded delivery otherwise there would be a proof of delivery, dated and timed.

That is why I asked - the other half had one sometime ago, normal mail -

So the Q remains how do you prove it was received after the deadline??
How do 'they' prove it was sent in a timely fashion??

 

[joe-90]

What about the post mark on the stamp?

 

[doitall]

The prosecution has to prove it was delivered not the other way round.

Thats why summons have to be delivered by hand to the defendant personally

 

[gcol]

There is a book out by an ex traffic cop who gives somegood tips on how to avoid a ticket.

http://www.drivershandbook.co.uk/[/QUOTE]Did you buy a copy?

 

[joe-90]

The prosecution has to prove it was delivered not the other way round.

Thats why summons have to be delivered by hand to the defendant personally

In that case everyone caught speeding would simply say it arrived too late and no-one would ever get sentenced.

 

[empip]

The prosecution has to prove it was delivered not the other way round.

Thats why summons have to be delivered by hand to the defendant personally

In that case everyone caught speeding would simply say it arrived too late and no-one would ever get sentenced.

...a notice of intended prosecution, specifying the nature of the offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, must be served on the offender, or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence, within 14 days of the offence.
These provisions are deemed to have been complied with unless or until the contrary has been proved (ie you will have to raise it)...

Apparently that is the gist of the law...

Perhaps motorists are generally pretty honest and hold their hands up - many, when they should not do so.

An older case ... similar perhaps?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1297

...The defendant swore under oath that he had not received the NIP until some 27 days after the date of the alleged offence and we showed the magistrates a letter that he had sent to Avon & Somerset Constabulary confirming this.
The magistrates ruled that there was no case to answer because, despite Avon & Somerset Constabulary saying in correspondence to the defendant that they would submit evidence to prove that the NIP was posted on time, no such evidence was made available in court...

What evidence could they have of posting on time - if not recorded ( nip's aren't ) ?

 

[tim west]

Why shouldnt Flintoff get off? he's a celebrity after all